Panama's Never-Ending Story

Few countries in Latin America can rival the relentlessness of Panama's enemies of press freedom.

Just ask journalist Jean Marcel Chéry, who has been sentenced to two years in prison after being declared guilty in a 2001 criminal defamation case, according to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Chéry, currently the editor-in-chief of El Siglo newspaper, and his attorneys have appealed the sentence and he will remain free until that is dealt with. But the stubbornness of the plaintiff in this case is sending a very clear message to Panama's news media that the enemies of press freedom can be as unyielding as any.

In 2001, Chéry wrote a story that was published by his newspaper, Panama América, describing how a road built with funds obtained by Panama from the Inter-American Development Bank ended up serving the properties of just two people, two powerful public officials.

One of the properties happened to belong to then Justice Minister Winston Spadafora, who filed a criminal defamation complain against Chéry, the other journalists involved in the coverage and Panama América's publisher Octavio Amat, even though the article was based on truthful findings.

Jean Marcel Chéry (right) and
Octavio Amat in a file photo.

Despite the fact that the courts found the case groundless, Spadafora, who at the time made it all the way to magistrate of the Supreme Court, hit back with a civil complain demanding US$2 million from the defendants and the seizure of Chéry's salary as a collateral.

Chéry and Amat took their case to the inter-American system, but that did not prevent Spadafora and his inside track within the Panamanian justice system to keep the case alive and kicking.

Chéry and Amat have maintained all along that the fundamental facts in the case were never contested by the plaintiff. He focused only on the alleged "moral damage" the truthful report caused on him.

In other words, he was caught in a blatant case of corruption, whose particulars have stood the passage of time, and chose to shield himself behind the country's draconian criminal defamation laws to silence a legitimate story that presented the facts before the readers of Panama América.

Incidentally, Panama holds the Western Hemisphere's record for the most cases of both insult and criminal defamation cases against journalists, 99, including this one.

A never-ending story indeed.

CPJ Releases List of Worst Countries to Be a Blogger

If this blog were to be published in countries such as Burma, Iran, Syria, Cuba or Saudi Arabia, changes are excellent this blogger would be behind bars or worse.

Those are the top five of the top 10 worst countries to be a blogger in the world, according to a report released today by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

According to the press freedom organization, blogging has revolutionized the flow of ideas throughout the world, and this explosion of free expression has scared the heck out the world's most repressive countries, which have added the latest censorship technologies to their existing repressive arsenals of imprisonment and intimidation to contain this freedom wave.

These are CPJ's top 10 worst countries to be a blogger:

1. BURMA
Burma, which heavily censors print and broadcast media, has also applied extensive restrictions on blogging and other Internet activity. Private Internet penetration is very small—only about 1 percent, according to the Internet research group OpenNet Initiative—so most citizens access the Internet in cybercafés. Authorities heavily regulate those cafés, requiring them, for example, to enforce censorship rules. The government, which shut down the Internet altogether during a popular uprising in 2007, has the capability to monitor e-mail and other communication methods and to block users from viewing Web sites of political opposition groups, according to OpenNet Initiative. At least two bloggers are now in prison.
Lowlight: Blogger Maung Thura, popularly known as Zarganar, is serving a 59-year prison term for disseminating video footage after Cyclone Nargis in 2008.

2. IRAN
Authorities regularly detain or harass bloggers who write critically about religious or political figures, the Islamic revolution, and its symbols. The government requires all bloggers to register their Web sites with the Ministry of Art and Culture. Government officials claim to have blocked millions of Web sites, according to news reports. A newly created special prosecutor’s office specializes in Internet issues and works directly with intelligence services. Pending legislation would make the creation of blogs promoting “corruption, prostitution, and apostasy” punishable by death.
Lowlight: Blogger Omidre Mirsayafiza, jailed for insulting the country’s religious leaders, died in Evin Prison in March under circumstances that have not been fully explained.

3. SYRIA
The government uses filtering methods to block politically sensitive sites. Authorities detain bloggers for posting content, even third-party material, deemed to be “false” or detrimental to “national unity.” Self-censorship is pervasive. In 2008, the Ministry of Communications ordered Internet café owners to get identification from all patrons, to record customer names and times of use, and to submit the documentation regularly to authorities. Human rights groups noted that authorities harass and detain bloggers perceived as antigovernment.
Lowlight: Waed al-Mhana, an advocate for endangered archaeological sites, is on trial for a posting that criticized the demolition of a market in Old Damascus.

4. CUBA
Only government officials and people with links to the Communist Party have Web access. The general population goes online at hotels or government-controlled Internet cafés by means of expensive voucher cards. A small number of independent bloggers such as Yoani Sánchez detail everyday life and offer criticism of the regime. Their blogs are hosted outside the country and are largely blocked on the island. Two independent bloggers tell CPJ that they are harassed by authorities. Only pro-government bloggers can post their material on domestic sites that can be easily accessed.
Lowlight: The government now jails 21 writers who were on the leading edge of online journalism in the early part of the decade. These writers, all but one of whom was jailed in 2003, phoned or faxed their material to overseas Web sites for posting.

5. SAUDI ARABIA
An estimated 400,000 sites are blocked inside the kingdom, including those that tackle political, social, or religious issues. Self-censorship is widespread. Aside from “indecent” material, Saudi Arabia blocks “anything contrary to the state or its system,” a standard that has been interpreted liberally. In 2008, influential clerics called for harsh punishment, including flogging and death, for online writers guilty of posting material deemed heretical.
Lowlight: Blogger Fouad Ahmed al-Farhan was jailed without charge for several months in 2007 and 2008 for promoting reform and the release of political prisoners.

6. VIETNAM
Bloggers have daringly tried to fill the gap in independent news that is left by the traditional state-controlled media. The government has responded with more regulation. Authorities have called on international technology companies such as Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft to provide information about bloggers who use their platforms. Last September, prominent blogger Nguyen Van Hai, also known as Dieu Cay, was sentenced to 30 months in prison on tax evasion charges. CPJ research shows the charges were in reprisal for his blogging.
Lowlight: In October 2008, the Ministry of Information and Communication created a new agency tasked with monitoring the Internet.

7. TUNISIA
Internet service providers are required to submit IP addresses and other identifying information to the government on a regular basis. All Internet traffic flows through a central network, allowing the government to filter content and monitor e-mails. The government employs an array of techniques to harass bloggers: conducting surveillance, restricting bloggers’ movements, and undertaking electronic sabotage. Online writers Slim Boukhdhir and Mohamed Abbou have served jail time for their work.
Lowlight: In a March address, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali warned writers against examining government “mistakes and violations,” saying it was “an activity that is unbecoming of our society and is not an expression of freedom or democracy.”

8. CHINA
With nearly 300 million people online—more than any other country in the world—China has a vibrant digital culture. But Chinese authorities also maintain the world’s most comprehensive online censorship program, one emulated by many other countries. The government relies on service providers to filter searches, block critical Web sites, delete objectionable content, and monitor e-mail traffic. Because China’s traditional press is tightly controlled, bloggers often break news and provide provocative commentary. Blogs, for example, played prominent roles in spreading news and information about the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. But bloggers who go too far in promoting unpopular views or reporting sensitive information can find themselves in jail. At least 24 online writers are now in prison, CPJ research shows.
Lowlight: In 2008, the National Office for Cleaning Up Pornography and Fighting Illegal Publications announced that it had removed more than 200 million “harmful” online items during the prior year.

9. TURKMENISTAN
President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov promised to open his isolated country to the world by providing public Internet access. But when the country’s first Internet café opened in 2007, it was guarded by soldiers, connections were uneven, the hourly fee was prohibitively high, and authorities monitored or blocked access to certain sites. The Russian telecommunications company MTS, which entered the Turkmen market in 2005, started offering Web access from mobile phones in June 2008, but service agreements require customers to avoid Web sites critical of the Turkmen government.
Lowlight: Turkmentelecom, the state Internet service provider, routinely blocks access to dissident and opposition sites, while it monitors e-mail accounts registered with Gmail, Yahoo, and Hotmail. 

10. EGYPT
Authorities block only a small number of Web sites, but they monitor Internet activity on a regular basis. Traffic from all Internet service providers passes through the state-run Egypt Telecom. Authorities regularly detain critical bloggers for open-ended periods. Local press freedom groups documented the detention of more than 100 bloggers in 2008 alone. Although most bloggers were released after short periods, some were held for months and many were kept without judicial order. Most detained bloggers report mistreatment, and a number have been tortured.
Lowlight: Blogger Abdel Karim Suleiman, known online as Karim Amer, is serving a four-year prison term on charges of insulting Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

A Piñata Called Ecuadorean Journalism

It's open season on journalists in Ecuador, and incarcerated reporter Milton Nelson Chacaguasay (above) seems to be public officials' favorite piñata.

Apparently unsatisfied with Chacaguasay's 10-month prison sentence on criminal defamation charges, the same judge who put him in prison has brought new charges in the same case that against him that could cost him US$400,000 in punitive damages.

Judge Silvio Castillo, of El Oro Province, now thinks that the punishment was too lenient and has opened a new process that could cause the defendant's financial ruin.

But wait, there is more. Former Prosecutor Francisco Quevedo has also charged the journalist with criminal defamation stemming from an article written by him in which Quevedo is apparently linked with a corrupt public official, now deceased.

And then, some more. Chacaguasay was found not guilty of criminal defamation in a trial brought up by a top official of the Social-Christian Party.

WPFC sent a protest letter to Ecuador's President Rafael Correa urging him to introduce legislation that would decriminalize the country's defamation laws, calling his attention to the unjust judicial harassment Chacaguasay and other Ecuadorian journalists are under.

Criminal defamation and insult laws are the most effective censorship tools in the arsenal of public figures other than physical threats and attacks on journalists. Every Latin American and Caribbean country has them, except for Mexico at the federal level and El Salvador.

These repressive statues allow public officials to invoke them whenever they feel threatened by the inquisitive work of a journalist, thus keeping the rest of society from learning about their activities.

Chacaguasay, who obviously has become the piñata of "offended" pubic officials in his country, is a good example of the effects of these laws, not only in Ecuador but in too many countries throughout the world

UAE, a Paradise for Good News

Or else.

The United Arab Emirates finally decided to reform its draconian press laws, and it still managed to keep the country as a living censorship hell for journalists reporting bad news.

The toxic reform was passed by the Legislature back in January, and President Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan (above) is still to sign it into law, amid a storm of protests from intellectuals, journalists and human rights advocates.

Among several toxic provisions the law would impose penalties of up US$1.35 million for "disparaging" the royal family or other top government officials. If the journalist is found to have misled the public or harmed the economy, then the fine could be up to US$135,000.

The law would decriminalize defamation laws yet would still make the practice of free journalism an impossible proposition. These are but a few of its provisions:

—Media organizations would have to make a security deposit from which to draw in case of fines being imposed because of what they may publish.

—The government would have complete control over who would considered a journalist.

—The government would have complete control over which media outlets would be able to operate in the country.

Human Rights Watch, which researched the new law extensively, shot a protest letter to the UAE authorities, calling the so-called reforms a gagging tool to silence the press.

"The law will muzzle the press, preventing honest reporting about the country's continuing financial crisis or about its rulers," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Its vague clauses and harsh fines will almost guarantee arbitrariness by government authorities and self-censorship by the media."

In this most interesting times of ours, a country where publishing bad news can signify financial ruin or worse is exposing itself to the old adage, "What you don't know can kill you."

'The Internet is God's Present to China'

From his prison in China, writer and dissident Liu Xiaobo (above) is thankful that the Internet is making censorship so hard on repressive regimes such as his own government.

Liu is about to be bestowed one of the world's grand literary prizes, the PEN/Barbara Goldsmith Freedom to Write Award, but he will see none of the ceremony from his Chinese prison cell.

The president of the PEN American Center, Kwame Anthony Appiah, had this to say about Liu:

The liberties that allow all of us to make meaningful lives have always depended, alas, on those who are willing, like Liu Xiaobo, to put their own freedom at risk. His consistent self-sacrifice for the cause of democracy in China should inspire all freedom’s friends around the world. I am filled with admiration – indeed, with awe – each time I read about the extraordinary things he has done.

Liu was arrested on December 8 on charges that he is one of the authors of the Charter 08, a civic movement of intellectuals and dissidents calling for democratic reforms in China.

The Times of London today published an op-ed column by Liu, in which he tells his story about living in a repressive society that is punishing his right to express himself freely. In his column, he calls the Internet "God's present to China." Here is his complete piece:

Today there are more than 100 million internet users in China. The Chinese Government is ambivalent towards it. On the one hand, the internet is a tool to make money. On the other, the Communist dictatorship is afraid of freedom of expression.

The internet has brought about the awakening of ideas among the Chinese. This worries the Government, which has placed great importance on blocking the internet to exert ideological control.

In October 1999 I finished three years of jail and returned home. There was a computer there and it seemed that every visiting friend was telling me to use it. I tried a few times but felt that I could not write anything while facing a machine and insisted on writing with a fountain pen. Slowly, under the patient persuasion and guidance of my friends, I got familiar with it and cannot leave it now. As someone who writes for a living, and as someone who participated in the 1989 democracy movement, my gratitude towards the internet cannot be easily expressed.

My first essay on the computer took a week to do - I was ready to abandon it several times. Under the encouragement of my friends, I finished it. For the first time, I sent an article by e-mail. Several hours later I received the reply from the editor. This made me aware of the magic of the internet.

With the censorship here, my essays can only be published overseas. Before using the computer, my handwritten essays were difficult to correct and the cost of sending them was high. To avoid the articles being intercepted, I often went from the west side of the city to the east side where I had a foreign friend who owned a fax machine.

The internet has made it easier to obtain information, contact the outside world and submit articles to overseas media. It is like a super-engine that makes my writing spring out of a well. The internet is an information channel that the Chinese dictators cannot fully censor, allowing people to speak and communicate, and it offers a platform for spontaneous organisation.

Open letters signed by individuals or groups are an important way for civilians to resist dictatorship and fight for freedom. The open letter from Vaclav Havel to the Czech dictator Husak was a classic of civil opposition to dictatorship.

Fang Lizhi, a famous dissident, wrote an open letter to Deng Xiaoping, China's leader, to ask for the release of the political prisoner Wei Jingsheng. This was followed by two open letters, signed by 33 and 45 people. These three open letters were regarded as the prelude to the 1989 democracy movement, when open letters rose up like bamboo shoots after rain to support the protesting students.

Back then it took a lot of time and resources to organise an open letter. Preparations began a month before; organisers had to be found to look up the people. We talked about the content of the letter, the phrasing, the timing, and it took several days to reach consensus. Afterwards, we had to find a place to typeset the handwritten open letter and then make several copies. After proofing the document, the most time-consuming thing was to collect the signatures. Since the government was monitoring the telephones of sensitive people, we had to ride our bicycles in all directions of Beijing.

In an era without the internet, it was impossible to collect the signatures of several hundred people, and it was also impossible to disseminate the news rapidly all over the world. At the time, the influence of and the participation in letter-writing campaigns were all quite limited. We worked for many days, and in the end we would only get a few dozen people to sign. The letter-signing movements in this new era have made a quantum leap.

The ease, openness and freedom of the internet has caused public opinion to become very lively in recent years. The Government can control the press and television, but it cannot control the internet. The scandals that are censored in the traditional media are disseminated through the internet. The Government now has to release information and officials may have to publicly apologise.

The first senior official to apologise was in 2001 when Zhu Rongji, who was then the Premier, apologised for an explosion in a school that caused the death of 41 people. At the same time, under the impact of internet opinion, the authorities had to punish officials - for Sars, mining accidents and the contamination of the Songhua River.

The internet has the extraordinary ability to create stars. Not only can it produce entertainment stars, it can also create “truth-speaking heroes”. It has allowed a new generation of intellectuals to emerge and created folk heroes such as the military doctor Jiang Yanyong (who publicly warned about the threat of Sars and forced the Government to take action).

Chinese Christians say that although the Chinese lack any sense of religion, their God will not forsake the suffering Chinese people. The internet is God's present to China. It is the best tool for the Chinese people in their project to cast off slavery and strive for freedom.

The Taxing Effect of 'Honor' Laws on Press Freedom

Blasphemy, insult and criminal defamation laws constitute the most effective censorship weapon against press freedom and freedom of expression other than physical threats and attacks on the news media. Very few countries around the world are spared of these very toxic statues.

In fact more than 190 countries do have criminal defamation laws in their law books. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, through its Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Dr. Catalina Botero, invited WPFC's Projects Director Javier Sierra to talk about this crucial issue before the annual plenary session of its Committee on Judicial and Political Issues, and this is his presentation, in Spanish only:

Presentación ante la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos y Políticos de la
Organización de Estados Americanos
“Libertad de Expresión y Defensa del Honor y la Intimidad”
Por Javier Sierra, Director de Proyectos del
Comité Mundial de Libertad de Prensa
24 de Abril, 2009

Damas y caballeros de esta distinguida audiencia, muy buenos días. Quiero en primer lugar agradecer a la Relatoría para la Libertad de Expresión, especialmente a la Dra. Catalina Botero, por su gentil invitación para participar de nuevo en este foro sobre temas de crucial relevancia para las Américas.

Tengo el gran placer de dirigirme a ustedes en esta ocasión acerca de una de las controversias de libertad de prensa más pertinaces no sólo en nuestro hemisferio sino en todo el mundo —los encontronazos entre la libertad de expresión y la defensa del honor y la intimidad, dos conceptos que bien podrían definirse como agua para chocolate, aunque más adelante trataré de demostrar que no existe tal incompatibilidad.

Ha sido este tema uno de los focos primordiales de la labor de nuestro Comité a lo largo de más de tres décadas. Y lo hemos hecho desde una tribuna muy similar a la del sistema interamericano de justicia. Nosotros concordamos con la Corte Interamericana en que las libertades de prensa y expresión tienen un "altísimo valor". Tanto es así para nuestros países que este concepto, en la Convención Americana, incluso excede el que reflejan otros tratados internacionales. Tal y como dice la Comisión Interamericana, “las garantías de libertad de expresión contenidas en la Convención Americana fueron diseñadas para ser las más generosas y para reducir almínimum las restricciones a la libre circulación de las ideas”.

En este tenor, el Comité se ha distinguido en la lucha contra la colegiación de periodistas, los códigos obligatorios de conducta y otras restricciones al libre ejercicio del periodismo, especialmente, y éste es el tema central de mi charla, las llamadas leyes del honor, es decir, las de desacato y las de difamación penal.

Estas leyes, constituyen el mayor obstáculo contra la libertad de expresión y prensa, aparte, por supuesto, de las amenazas y agresiones físicas contra los medios de comunicación.

Históricamente, los estamentos públicos de nuestros países han profesado una fiel devoción por estas leyes porque entre otras razones a quienes mejor protegen es a los funcionarios públicos. Recordemos que las leyes de desacato, por ejemplo, fueron creadas por el Imperio Romano para escudar al emperador contra las críticas del pueblo.

Y aunque la situación ha mejorado en la última década, este culto al honor sigue profundamente arraigado en las burocracias de la región. En una misión a un país centroamericano, tuvimos la oportunidad de visitar al presidente de la corte suprema. Después de una muy cordial conversación, cuando le instamos a que usara su influencia para derogar la única ley de desacato de su país, el magistrado, con voz suave y tono firme nos dijo, “Antes de eliminar la ley de desacato me corto el brazo derecho. Para mi la vida sin honor no merece vivirse”.

Todavía no sabemos qué nos conmocionó más, las palabras del magistrado o el terremoto de intensidad 3,5 que sacudió el edificio de la corte suprema mientras bajábamos por las escaleras.

Y digo que la situación ha mejorado porque un año más tarde nuestra misión rindió frutos, y ese país eliminó su ley de desacato y el magistrado conservó su brazo derecho.

Final Whimpers in Geneva. Last Report (4) from Geneva on the UN's Durban II Conference

WPFC's European Representative Rony Koven is in Geneva reporting on the conference developments. This is his fourth and last report:

Final Whimpers in Geneva

By Ronald Koven

Durban Ii, the weeklong UN Durban Review Conference, ended Friday with no bang and many whimpers.

The compromise final outcome document was formally adopted by the delegates in the half-empty Assembly Hall of Geneva's Palais des Nations after a day and a half of three-minute speeches by dozens of non-governmental organizations making often contradictory complaints.

They were followed up in a closing ceremony by governmental spokesmen for the national groupings who joined in the consensus - Pakistan for the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, South Africa for the African group, Cuba for the Non-Aligned Movement, Chile for Latin America-Caribbean, India for Asia, Sweden for those European Union countries who had not walked out of the conference, Russia for itself, and the host country Switzerland.

There were many statements to the effect that nobody was really satisfied with the outcome and numerous indications that the most contentious issues that were set aside would be raised again elsewhere.

To the numerous NGO complaints that the final outcome document was actually approved on Tuesday, without even hearing what the NGOs had to say, the main organizer, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, repeated several times that this was the start, not the end of a process.

A number of speakers repeated South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma's statement that “this document doesn't make any individual happy, but it makes us collectively happy.”

When a Tibetan NGO tried to speak Friday morning, she was interrupted at almost every sentence with points of order by a Chinese delegate saying she had no right to raise such irrelevancies. The Chinese delegate was joined by an Iranian who called upon conference chairman Amos Wako of Kenya not to wait for points of order to rule speakers out of order. The harried chairman replied that delegates were free to raise as many points of order as they wished but that this was wasting a lot of precious conference time and in effect that objecting to statements was not his job.

The young Tibetan woman, Tsering Jampa, was trying to recount how she had tried earlier this month to check in at an apparently very friendly Beijing hotel when the clerk said, “Tibetans can't stay here” -- at least not without police permission -- and that she ran into the same reaction at seven or eight other hotels that same evening.

The Iranian delegate demanded a right of reply for statements by Norway, Argentina, Sweden, Britain, France and Austria criticizing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's incendiary opening speech on Monday. “It is regrettable,” he said, “that the right to freedom of expression is so wrongly and narrowly defined by some in the interest of masking harsh and bitter realities that occur particularly against Muslims …”   The Pakistani delegate echoed the thought in its closing statement for the Islamic countries, and he also hailed Iran's role at the conference. South Africa joined in complaining about official criticisms of the “sovereign statement” by a head of state, meaning Iran's President.

There were, in fact, a number of statements to the effect that while freedom of expression had been reaffirmed in the outcome document, the limits to hate speech had also been stressed. It was a contradiction that promises years of future wrangling over what is acceptable free speech and what is in fact hate speech. As Pillay summed up the looming debate: “The document reaffirms the centrality of freedom of expression and stresses its compatibility with the prohibitions of incitement to hatred, thereby reconciling these two fundamental principles of international human rights law.”

Britain preceded her by saying that the British government stands by its view that there is a right to say things that are “distasteful or offensive” to others.

Denmark's Human Rights Ambassador, Arnold de Fine Skibsted, had waded into the fray the day before with a conference statement Denmark will never accept the kinds of attempts made at the conference to restrict freedom of opinion and expression. He also said that the momentarily unsuccessful attempt to include a new international crime of “defamation of religions” in the final document is “a prohibition against criticism directed against religions” that is “unacceptable” to Denmark. “It is also a notion that is alien to the concept of human rights. Human rights are protecting the rights of individuals, not ideologies, religions or abstract values.”

Pillay issued a written statement saying she had barred three NGOs from further participation in the conference and that UN security had taken access badges away from 44 would-be demonstrators, more than half from the French and European Union of Jewish students. The French group had registered 194 members for the conference she said, 31 of whom had actually picked up their badges before having them taken away for what Pillay called “unacceptable disruptive behavior … to disrupt the conference.”

But another Jewish group, Independent Jewish Voices of Canada, called in its   conference   speech for Israel to be held accountable for its Gaza military campaign and said to much applause that “criticism isn't anti-semitism.” There was still more applause when the same group said it supports calls for reparations for the transatlantic slave trade (which a Caribbean government delegate said should take the initial immediate form of forgiveness of the island nations'   official debts).

At the conference closing, she said that the final document “reconciles divergent opinions which have erroneously been presented as a confrontation between cultures, rather than the frank different perspectives they actually were.”

She said that a number of the governments that had walked out over the Iranian President's speech had in fact approved the final outcome document before leaving the conference and so she said she had high hopes that they would wind up formally endorsing it. Whether that would spare her from being at the center of future storms remains to be seen.

IFJ Demands Apology from NATO on 10th Anniversary of Media Killings in Serbia

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) issued a demand for NATO to apologize on the tenth anniversary of its bombing a television station in Belgrade that killed 16 media workers.

This is the full statement:

"When NATO forces decided to strike at the television of station RTS in Belgrade because they found its propaganda offensive they set a terrible precedent," said Jim Boumelha, IFJ President. "That attack opened the door to a decade of attacks on media in conflict zones and has made journalism more dangerous than ever."

Boumelha says that NATO should admit its mistake on April 23rd 1999 when it targeted the Serbian state broadcaster in its struggle with the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. "The lives lost are gone forever, but an apology from NATO to the families and colleagues of those who died is long overdue," he said.

Only days before the attack, the IFJ had received an assurance from NATO officials that it would not attack media during the conflict over the future of Kosovo. Such an attack is in contravention of international law, warned the IFJ and other press freedom advocates, even if the media concerned are guilty of propaganda.

Attacks are only permitted on media when they are actively engaged in the strategic process of war. 

But the NATO strike went ahead. Those who died were forced to stay at their posts despite warnings of the attack, raising claims that they had been deliberately placed in danger by the RTS bosses. Following the attack , other assaults on media installations - particularly by the Israeli military which attacked media in Lebanon in 2006 and in the Gaza Strip earlier this year - have been justified by NATO's action.

The IFJ pledged at this anniversary to support journalists in Serbia in their efforts to seek justice for their colleagues who died during the attack and to overcome the legacy of divisive politics which for so long has undermined the profession.

 The IFJ represents over 600,000 journalists in 123 countries worldwide.

Open Letter by Roxana Saberi's Fiancee

(EPA photo)

Bahman Ghobadi, an Iranian film-maker and fiancee of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi (above), who has been sentenced to prison for spying in Iran, has written the following open letter in defense of his wife.

"To Roxana Saberi, Iranian with an American passport"

If  I kept quiet until now, it was for her sake. If today I speak, it is for her sake.

She is my friend, my fiancée, and my companion. An intelligent and talented young woman, whom I have always admired.

It was the 31st of January. The day of my birthday. That morning, she called to say she would pick me up so we would go out together. She never came. I called on her mobile, but it was off, and for two-three days  I had no idea what had happened to her.  I went to her apartment, and since we had each other's keys, I went in, but she wasn't there. Two days later, she called and said: "Forgive me my dear, I had to go to Zahedan." I got angry: why hadn't she said anything to me? I told her I didn't believe her, and again she said: "Forgive me my dear, I had to go." And the line was cut. I waited for her to call back. But she didn't call back. She didn't call back.

I left for Zahedan. I looked for her in every hotel, but nobody had ever heard her name. For ten days, thousands of wild thoughts came to my mind. Until I learned, through her father, she had been arrested. I thought it was a joke.

I thought it was a misunderstanding and that she would be released after two or three days. But days went by and I had no news from her. I started to worry and knocked on every door for help, until I understood what had happened.

It is with tears in my eyes that I say she is innocent and guiltless. It is me, who has known her for years, and shared every moment with her, who declares it.  She was always busy reading and doing her research. Nothing else. During all these years I've known her, she wouldn't go anywhere without letting me know, nor would do anything without asking my advice. To her friends, her family, everyone that surrounded her, she had given no signs of unreasonable behavior. How come someone who would spend days without going out of her apartment, except to see me; someone who, like a Japanese lady, would carefully spend her money, and had sometimes trouble making a living; someone who was looking for a sponsor to get in contact with a local publisher so her book would be printed here (in Iran); could now  be charged with a spying accusation?! We all know – no, we have all seen in movies – that spies are malicious and sneaky, that they peep around for information, and that they are very well paid.

And now my heart is full of sorrow. Because it is me who incited her to stay here. And now I can't do anything for her. Roxana wanted to leave Iran. I kept her from it.

At the beginning of our relationship, she wanted to go back to the United States. She would have liked us to go together. But I insisted for her to stay until my new film was over. She really wanted to leave Iran. And I kept her from it. And now I am devastated, for it is because of me she has been subject to these events. These past years, I have been subject to a serious depression. Why? Because  my movie had been banned, and released on the black market. My next movie was not given an authorization, and I was forced to stay at home. If I've been able to stand it until today, it is thanks to the presence and help that she provided me with.

Since I had no authorization for my last movie, I was nervous and ill-tempered. And she was always there to calm me down.

Roxana wanted to leave Iran. I kept her from it. She is the one who took care of me while I was depressed. Then I convinced her to stay, I wanted her to write the book she had started in her head. I accompanied her, and thanks to my friends and contacts, I knocked on every door and was able to set up meetings with film makers, artists, sociologists, politics, and others. I would go with her myself.

She was absorbed by her book, to the point that she could stay and bear it all, until my film would be finished, and we would leave together.

Roxana's book was a praise to Iran. The manuscripts exist, and it will certainly be published one day, and all will see it. But why have they said nothing?  All those who have talked, worked and sat with her, and who know how guiltless she is.

I am writing this letter for I am worried about her. I am worried about her health. I heard she was depressed and cried all the time. She is very sensitive. To the point she refuses to touch her food.

My letter is a desperate call to all statesmen and politics, and to all those who can do something to help. From the other side of the ocean, the Americans have protested against her imprisonment, because she is an American citizen. But I say no, she is Iranian, and  she loves Iran. I beg you, let her go! I beg you not to throw her in the midst of you political games! She is too weak and too pure to take part in your games. Let me be present at her trial, sit next to her wise father and gentle mother, and testify she is without guilt or reproach.

However, I am optimistic about her release, and I firmly hope the verdict will be cancelled  in the next stage of the trial.
My Iranian girl with Japanese eyes and an American ID, is in jail. Shame on me! Shame on us!

Bahman Ghobadi

April 21st, 2009.

Reality Rains on New York Times' Parade

Twenty four hours after The New York Times received news of being awarded five Pulitzer Prizes, the Old Lady of American journalism was brought back to the crushing reality of the newspaper industry.

The paper's parent company, New York Times Co., announced today that during the first quarter it lost $74.5 million, a much worse performance than analysts had expected.

The main culprit was a 27-percent nosedive of its advertising revenue.

The Associated Press:

The results in the most recent quarter included charges totaling 18 cents per share to cover the costs of jettisoning employees and other one-time accounting measures.

Even with those charges stripped out, the loss was much worse than analysts expected. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had predicted the New York-based company would lose 4 cents per share.

Revenue for the period dropped 19 percent to $609 million _ about $22 million below the average analyst estimate.

The disappointing performance was driven by a nearly $124 million decline in the Times Co.'s ad revenue from the same time last year. While most of the erosion was concentrated in the Times Co.'s newspapers, its Internet ad revenue also sagged by 8 percent, or $3.6 million.

Like other major newspaper publishers, the Times Co. is being hit with a devastating double whammy _ a 16-month-old recession and a marketing shift that has diverted more ad spending to less expensive Internet alternatives. At the same time, many readers are canceling their newspaper subscriptions because they can read much of the same information for free on the Web.

The company is expecting its second-quarter numbers to be just as depressing, but it said it hopes an economic recovery by the second half of the year will help ease the current pain.

The company has been implementing drastic cuts in its operating budget —like warning the closing of one of its properties, the Boston Globe, if it did not get $20 million in union concessions— and trying to open other sources of revenue —like selling 21 of the 52 floors of its building in Midtown Manhattan.